<div dir="ltr">The fact that this could be used in expressions is making the N x T syntax grow on me.<div><br></div><div>(N x T) := (T, T, ...)</div><div>(N x <expr>) := (<expr>, <expr>, ...)</div><div><br></div><div>It has a nice symmetry.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 9:24 PM, Félix Cloutier <<a href="mailto:felixcca@yahoo.ca" target="_blank">felixcca@yahoo.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> To me, it's closely related to the declaration issue. By introducing a (N x Type) syntax, we're solving the LHS problem but leaving the RHS problem intact. If we want to spin it off into a separate proposal, I think that the most logical split is to have a proposal for subscripts on uniform tuples, and a a proposal for the shorthand syntax and a way to initialize values of these types.<br>
<br>
</span>Just spitballing…we could bring the N x <expr> syntax to expressions as well, so that (5 x 0) is (0,0,0,0,0), and maybe (1, 3 x 0, 2) is (1, 0, 0, 0, 2). With integer literals it's hard to tell which side is which, though...<br>
<br>
-Joe<br>
<div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Trent Nadeau</div>
</div></div></div>